You'll have to pardon me, but I don't follow the logic. We have no information about a certain player, so we should...put them in a situation where we are most likely to gain no information? Would one or both of you be able to explain your logic? Because as it stands, I think the ideal plan is "If any player, as Chancellor, passes a fascist policy, do not nominate them as Chancellor again unless it is impossible not to do so." And we can even give this rule weight on a case-by-case basis, using the probability that the player was in a situation where they had no choice but to pass a fascist policy.

I don't know about Gopher, but my own logic is: Gopher is slightly more likely to be liberal than mpolo, and this round the outcome is certain, so we want to choose Gopher as chancellor next turn when he might have a liberal policy to choose from. If we choose him this round he can't be chosen next round.

That was essentially my logic. We only need one more liberal policy to win. But there will be a 0% chance of drawing one this turn, and a 2 / 13 chance the following turn (for one draw, can't be bothered figuring out one all three). At the moment I do not trust mpolo, as we have been going so well, and they have not had to do anything.

In fact, the presidency is probably the most important role here. If a fascist can get their hands on the presidency and discard a liberal policy without people knowing, we're in trouble.

mpolo wrote:I was given two three fascist policies to choose from, so obviously had to take a fascist policy (actually, I was told not to bother sending a choice PM). Any suggestions as to a good Chancellor?

I'm not really seeing anything that would tend to eliminate any of the players at this point as being certainly fascist. Should I just nominate someone like Gopher of Pern who has been successful in the past?